SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
M/s Naresh Potteries – Appellant
Versus
M/s Aarti Industries And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8659 of 2023)
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Dishonour of cheque – In cases where payee/complainant is company, all that is necessary to be demonstrated before Magistrate is that complaint is filed in name of payee and if complaint is being prosecuted by someone other than payee, he has knowledge of contents of complaint and he is duly authorised to prosecute complaint – If there is any dispute with regard to person prosecuting complaint not being authorised or it is to be demonstrated that complainant had no knowledge of transaction, and as such could not have instituted and prosecuted complaint, it would be open for accused person to dispute the position and establish the same during course of trial – However, dismissal or quashing of complaint at threshold would not be justified. (Para 21)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Dishonour of cheque – Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court – Complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act should be in writing and should be filed by payee or holder of cheque – Complaint in present matter satisfies requirements of Section 142 of NI Act – High Court has quashed summoning order on a categorical finding that power of attorney holder did not have personal knowledge of facts giving rise to criminal proceedings – Sole proprietor of appellant-firm had duly authorized power of attorney holder to act on its behalf – Power of attorney holder possessed personal knowledge of facts of matter at hand and was well-equipped and duly authorised to initiate criminal proceedings against Respondent No.1 – It would always be open for trial court to call upon complainant for examination and cross-examination, if and when necessary, during course of trial – As such, peremptory quashing of complaint case by High Court is completely unwarranted and that too on an incorrect factual basis – Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with great caution – Final judgment and order passed by Single Judge of High Court quashed and set aside and Complaint restored to file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to be heard and decided on its own merits. (Paras 26, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges judgment and final order dated 12th April 2023 passed by Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application. Single Judge allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by Respondent No. 1 and quashed summoning order dated 22nd November 2021 passed by trial court in Complaint Case as well as entire proceedings arising from complaint case filed by present appellant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Findings of Court:
High Court has passed the impugned judgment and order on a completely perfunctory and erroneous reasoning which depicts absence of careful consideration.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 12th April 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29906 of 2022. The learned Single Judge allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by M/s Aarti Industries, Respondent No. 1 herein and quashed the summoning order dated 22nd November 2021 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahar1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial court’.] in Complaint Case No. 701 of 2021, as well as the entire proceedings arising from the said complaint case filed by the present appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 18812[For short ‘NI Act’], pending before the trial court in C.N.R. No. UPBU160012972021.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. M/s Naresh Properties through its Manager Neeraj Kumar, appellant herein, deals in the manufacture and sale of crockeries, insulators, polymer insulators and other such hardware fittings.
3.2. Between the period from 18th June 2021 to 2nd July 2021, M/s Aarti Industries represented by its sole proprietor Sunita Devi, Respondent No. 1 herein, had purchased polymer insulators scrap rejected material, worth Rs. 1,70,46,314/- from the present appellant. After the materials were supplied to Respondent No.1, the appellant raised several bills/invoices seeking payment for the supplied goods.
3.3. Subsequently, on 12th July 2021, the appellant was given a cheque issued in its favour by Respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,70,46,314/-. The said cheque bearing No. 086295 dated 10th July 2021 had been drawn on the A/c No. 3640670725 belonging to M/s Aarti Industries at the Central Bank of India, Branch Khurja.
3.4. Upon receiving the said cheque, the appellant deposited it in its A/c No. 07382560000285 at HDFC Bank, Branch Khurja on 12th July 2021 for encashment. However, the cheque came to be dishonoured and on 13th July 2021, the cheque was returned to the appellant with a return memo which stated that the cheque amount ‘exceeds arrangement’.
3.5. Aggrieved thereby, on behalf of Smt. Shakti Khanna, the owner/proprietor of the appellant-firm, a legal notice dated 15th July 2021 was issued to Respondent No.1 through its sole proprietor, Sunita Devi under the NI Act. According to the legal notice, Respondent No.1 was to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 1,70,46,314/- within a period of 15 days of receiving the notice, failing which the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act was liable to be attracted.
3.6. Immediately thereafter, on 16th July 2021, as a counter blast to the legal notice, Angad the son of the sole proprietor of Respondent No.1 lodged a First Information Report under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against 7 accused persons. It was alleged that Ashish Khanna, the owner of the appellant-firm, the staff of the appellant-firm and the branch manager of the Central Bank of India, Branch Khurja had colluded together to obtain a cheque book in the name of M/s Aarti Industries by forging the signature of Sunita Devi. It was further alleged that the said cheque book containing cheques from SI No. 86281 to 86380 was thereafter used by the appellant-firm to issue two cheques - first, cheque No. 086291 dated 10th July 2021 for a sum of Rs. 1,62,28,445/- issued in favour of Shakti Ceramics and second, cheque No. 086295 dated 10th July 2021 for a sum of Rs. 1,70,46,314/- issued in favour of the present appellant.
3.7. Subsequently, on 31st August 2021, Smt. Shakti Khanna being the sole proprietor of the appellant-firm issued a Letter of Authority thereby authorizing Sh. Neeraj Kumar, the manager and caretaker of the appellant-firm to file a complaint and take all such necessary steps in the matter of the dishonour of the cheque.
3.8. Upon being so authorized, Sh. Neeraj Kumar in the name of M/s Naresh Potteries, filed a compl
TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited v. SMS Asia Private Limited and Another
Praveen v. Mohd. Tajuddin (2009) 12 SCC 706 [Para 8] – Relied
(1) Dishonour of cheque – In cases where payee/complainant is company, all that is necessary to be demonstrated before Magistrate is that complaint is filed in name of payee.(2) Dishonour of cheque ....
Power of attorney holders can file cheque dishonour complaints if they possess personal knowledge of the transaction; absence of such knowledge may invalidate the complaint.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – When, complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent company.(2) Dishonour of cheque – Dismissal of a complaint at threshold by Magistrate on question ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed by a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be in the name of the company and can be represented b....
Punishment under Section 138 of Act is not a means of seeking retribution but a means to ensure payment of money.
A power of attorney holder cannot file a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act in his own name; he must act on behalf of the principal and possess knowledge of the transaction.
The court affirmed that a complaint under Section 138 requires valid authorization from a company’s board, and without it, the complaint is invalid regardless of other evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.